R v Farrington

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)
• Judge: Hilton, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 2016
• Docket Number: Case No 225/9/2015
• Date: 01 January 2016

Regina

and

Farrington

Hilton, J. (Ag.)

Case No 225/9/2015

Supreme Court

Criminal practice and procedure - Application for admission of witness statement into evidence — Failure to locate witness — Whether all reasonable steps were taken to find the witness — Whether admitting the witness statement into evidence in the circumstances would be prejudicial to the accused — Whether the requirements under section 66 (2) (c) of the Evidence Act have been met — Delay in contacting witness.

Appearances:

Basil Cumberbatch for the Crown

Eleanor Albury for the Accused

Hilton, J. (Ag.):

1 This is an application by the crown pursuant to section 66 (1) and 2 (c) of the Evidence Act for the statements of Raymond Demeritte Jr. to be read into evidence during the trial on the basis that he was unable to be found after all reasonable steps had been taken to find him.

2 The Defence objected to the application on the basis that the requirements of section 66 (2) (c) had not been met and under section 66 (4) the prejudice to the Accused in not being able to be cross-examine the witness (who was the complainant) would result in the trial being unfair to the accused. In the absence of the jury I heard evidence of two witnesses called by the crown in respect of the issue.

3 The crown called Sgt. 620 Patrick Knowles a court liaison officer attached to the Attorney General's Office responsible for locating witnesses and serving summons on witnesses.

His evidence in brief is that on 2” August 2016 he received a witness summons to serve on the witness. The trial was originally set to commence on 8thAugust 2016 but was later set for 22” August 2016.

He testified that he commenced enquires for the witness on 2nd August 2016 and checked the witness last known work place Bahamas Food Services with no positive result. He also called a telephone number of the witness and got a response from a male identifying himself as Raymond Demeritte Sr. and advised him to have the witness come into the A.G.'s office as the trial was imminent. He was unsuccessful in reaching anyone on the number, when the witness did not come to the A.G's Office, until 18th August 2016 when the witness answered the phone and was again advised to come to the A.G. Office. The witness said he would come in but never did. When he was again contacted he said he did not come in because he was afraid of being locked up.

Sgt. Knowles was unable to reach the witness thereafter even though he checked the witness last known physical address as well as the area listed on the witness summons as the address of the witness. No one in any of those areas claimed to know the witness.

Sgt. Knowles also requested that a radio announcement be placed for the witness and a letter was prepared to effect this. There is no evidence that the radio announcement was ever played.

4 The second witness was Audia Lightbourne the former girlfriend of the witness. She testified that she contacted the witness by phone during the week of 15th August 2016 and advised him of the trial which was to commence on 22nd August 2016 and her testimony was that the witness said “OK'.

5 The Crown submitted that based on the evidence all reasonable steps had been taken to find the witness and that the witness could not be found. The Crown acknowledged that the witness was aware of the court date but had decided not to come to court.

6 The counsel for Accused submitted that to allow the witness statement to be given in evidence in these circumstances would be prejudicial to the accused. The witness was the complaint in the case and to deprive the Accused of...